Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-03 - AGENDA REPORTS - UCLA RPT (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO:Ae th a d embers of the City Council FROM:e A. arav o i y Manager DATE: June 3, 1997 SUBJECT: LANDFILLSOLID WASTE ISSUES: UCLA REPORT UPDATE AND COUNTY SITING ELEMENT To keep the City Council and the general public informed on these issues, the City Manager presents a status report monthly to the Council during a regularly scheduled public meeting. Additionally, other information is submitted for the Council's consideration as needed, or when staff seeks the Council's continuing direction. Two such items are presented tonight: An update on the Draft Report on the UCLA Summit; and, an update on the status on the County Siting Element. I. UCLA Conference At the City Council meeting of May 13, 1997, the Council was provided with a report on the April 23-24, 1997, UCLA Summit on Solid Waste Management. At that time, I indicated that staff would return to you with a brief presentation of the Report on the Summit being prepared by the Advanced Policy Institute of UCLA. At this writing, the Report on the Summit is in its draft stage of preparation by Dr. Grigsby of UCLA. Staff will provide a copy of the draft Executive Summary of the Report to the Council upon receipt, and will be prepared to discuss the contents of the report. II. CounIX Siting Element As previously reported, the draft County Siting Element ("CSE") was approved by the L.A. County Solid Waste Task Force in February, 1997. The final CSE has been prepared by County staff, and is to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors (`BOS") for review in mid- June, perhaps on June 17, 1997. Upon direction from the BOS, the document will be transmitted to the 88 Los Angeles County cities. .s, This transmittal will trigger a 90 -day response period during which the cities are legislatively permitted to take council action in response to the document. By law, non -action by any city will be deemed as approval of the Siting Element by that city. County staff indicates, and the City Attorney's office has confirmed, that upon closure of this 90 -day period the CSE need not be returned to the BOS for additional action. Current indications are that County staff will forward the document to the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Board ("CISWMB") for adoption.. City staff believes that this final version of the CSE represents a significant improvement over the original. In particular, Supervisor Antonovich's Board motion in November, 1996, resulted in important new language about AB939 being added by County staff, and some suggestions from the GBB Report have been indirectly incorporated. Based on our review of the CSE, we are confident that with three final modifications, it would adequately address and accommodate Santa Clarita's issues of concern, as well as the concerns of many of the cities contacted over the past six months. These requested modifications can be summarized as set forth below: 1) LEADERSHIP -- Renewed commitment from the County that it will strive to promote a cooperative regional approach to solid waste management and, where possible, provide leadership for the region by identifying and implementing programs that will, in order, maximize source reduction, recycling, transformation, extended landfill life, and out -of -County disposal. 2) LANDFILLS -- Request that the County remove Elsmere Canyon and Towsley Canyon from the CSE as identified potential landfill sites. 3) LANGUAGE -- Adopt final language amendments to the CSE to more clearly incorporate the "hierarchy" of AB 939. (See Attachment A, "Siting Element -- Revisions to Goals and Policies".) The amendments suggested are generally consistent with some earlier CSE language which was changed/deleted during the Task Force's review. In all cases, the text would provide an "escape clause" if, for technical reasons, a given course of action is demonstrably infeasible. We have forwarded these requests to Deputy Director Don Wolfe of County Public Works for his review and consideration. Additionally, Mayor Smythe and Assistant City Manager Pulskamp met with Supervisor Antonovich and members of his staff on May 27, 1997, to discuss our requests and seek his assistance when the item comes to the Board for action. As the results of this meeting are not available at this writing, staff will apprise the Council verbally of the outcome of this meeting tonight. A meeting of the Elsmere Community Group Leaders has been scheduled for the afternoon of June 3, 1997, to update them on the above, to solicit comment and information from the group, and to strategize what role the community group should undertake with regards to CSE processing and the Board's action. Once again, as the results of this meeting are not available at this writing, staff will apprise the Council verbally of the outcome of this meeting tonight. At this time, staff would appreciate additional guidance from the City Council on the course of action deemed most prudent and appropriate. For example, the above approach is based on previous direction from the Council, influenced by the information and feedback we have received from our consultants resulting from their activities since January. If the BOS approves the requested changes prior to issuance of the CSE for review by the cities, no additional action from Santa Clarita may be required on this issue. In the event that the BOS is unable to agree to the City's requested changes, however, several options would be available to the city in response including, but not limited to: continued action with the cities of L.A. County to generate opposition to the CSE; opposition to the CSE at the state level (through the CISWMB) and lobbying; litigation; some combination of the foregoing and/or no further action on the CSE at this time. I believe that Council consideration and a general discussion of the above would be of assistance to staff in directing our efforts in this area over the next 90 to 120 days. RECOMMENDATION(S) UCLA Report: Receive and discuss update information. Siting Element: Receive and discuss update information; support of current staff approach on CSE process pending BOS action in June; provide discussion and guidance on subsequent action(s) on the CSE process, if any; and consider any potential new direction to staff. Attachment: A) Siting Element Revisions to Goals and Policies, 05/27/97 S AADM1N\LAN DFILL%S7DYSSN.CSE ATTACHMENT A L. A. COUNTY SITING ELEMENT REQUESTED LANGUAGE REVISIONS TO GOALS AND POLICIES MAY 27,1997* As presently drafted, the Siting Element focuses first on development of new disposal facilities and secondarily on the options to reduce the need for such facilities. In order to be more responsive to the objectives of AB 939 as well as the practical reality of the difficulty in developing new landfill capacity within an urbanizing county, the development of new landfill capacity should be considered only after all other options are exhausted. The following specific changes should be made to the Goals: 1. Goal 2.4.1 -- This goal should be considered when all other alternatives are exhausted and renumbered to goal 2.4.7. In addition, the policies to implement this goal should be amended as follows: a. Policies to enhance in -county landfill disposal capacity should be amended to delete Towsley Canyon as a potential landfill site. Access to the site is no longer feasible due to the acquisition of lands surrounding Towsley Canyon for public open space purposes. b. The policy statement for out -of -County should go further than just facilitating out of County disposal. It should encourage or maximize the use of such facilities whenever it is feasible. C. The. policy to foster development of alternative waste disposal technologies should be elevated to become a separate goal. d. The first policy under alternative waste disposal technologies should be amended to include a statement of encouragement for the development of such technologies. 2. Goal 2.4.2 -- The first policy under this goal should take a stronger position on interjurisdictional cooperation. The issue of leadership and the establishment of institutional structures that would insure interjurisdictional programs must be addressed. Goal 2.4.3 -- The policy statements under this goal should be amended to recognize the potential for the establishment of regional/subregional entities such as JPAs or COGS that would take a stronger role in coordinating and managing solid waste activities within the County. 4. Goal 2.4.4 -- An additional policy statement should be added that would encourage cities and the County to adopt voluntary recycling/diversion objectives similar to those adopted by the City of Los Angeles. 5. Goal 2.4.5 -- The policy statements under this goal should be amended as follows: a. The first policy statement should include the requirement that the building/construction permit process mandate diversion of inert waste from Class III landfills unless it can be demonstrated that no other practical alternative exists. b. The second policy statement should be amended to require Class III landfill operators to implement measures to minimize disposal of inert waste at their facilities unless it can be proven that such measures are not feasible. C. The third policy statement should be amended to require Class III landfill operators to maximize the density of disposed material unless it can be proven that such measures are not feasible. d. All Class lII landfill operators should be required to use alternative daily cover unless it can be proven that it is not feasible, will not increase the landfill life, or is not permitted by a local enforcement agency or the State. 6. Goal 2.4.6 -- The first policy statement should require the establishment of waste salvage/diversion operations for all waste materials which can be feasibly and economically reused, recycled, or composted. * Previously submitted to Deputy Director of Public Works Don Wolfe on May 21, 1997 City Council Study Session June 3,1997 Call To Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: All Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Boyer who entered at 7:03 p.m.. Pledge of Allegiance: Led by Mayor Smyth Item 1 STATUS OF NORTH VALENCIA PROJECT PROCESSING - Planning Manager Jeff Lambert advised that the Valencia Company was presently making revisions to the specific plan and tentative tract map based on City staff comments and outlined the proposed time frame and Planning Commission schedule. The specific plan, tentative tract map and the draft EIR should be ready for public review in mid-June. Associate Planner Laura Stotler walked through the specific plan and land use plan. Council discussion and concerns: clarification of the need to complete the annexation by the end of the year; the zoning and general plan designations; areas that were part of the specific plan v. part of the annexation; potential traffic load on Avenue Scott; protecting the river and adjacent areas including buffers; and whether the project would be brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission. Public Participation: unnamed gentleman spoke with regard to habitat protection; gentleman with first name of Mike provided information from a conference of water agencies related to development within a 400 -year flood zone. Item STANDARD MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE RELATED TO AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS - Planning Manager Jeff Lambert explained that the purpose of the standard management procedure policy is to implement the City's General Plan and to establish guidelines for implementing the development incentives, as provided for in the Unified Development Code (Section 17.17.070) for senior, very low, and low income housing. Director of Finance and Administration Steve Stark outlined paragraph E of Council Policy I-8 pertaining to Affordable Housing and introduced a representative of the Foundation for Affordable Housing who outlined a proposal for the city to work with that organization on a development being sold to the Foundation. Feedback was requested from the Council relating to fee waivers and bond financing. Council discussion and concerns: what the cost is to the city in additional services associated with these projects; doing an economic analysis of a project; obtaining guidelines for what a good mix would be for senior housing in a community; whether a project would include handicapped as well as seniors; the density; associating the City's good name with a bond issue; and the need to add to the City's stock of low income and senior housing. City Council Study Session June 3, 1997 Page 2 Public Participation: Allan Cameron noted that the General Plan had a strong requirement for affordable housing that was not being fulfilled. Direction provided that a Council majority would consider fee waivers and bond financing and that an overall economic plan should be reviewed. Item 3 LANDFILL/SOLID WASTE ISSUES: UCLA REPORT UPDATE AND COUNTY SITING ELEMENT - City Manager Caravalho provided a brief summary of the UCLA Summit and advised that a draft report and video would be coming. He also reviewed the status of the County Siting Element and, with the assistance of Senior Planner Don Williams, displayed a map of the Valley. Council discussion and concerns: wished to see a map of the area surrounding Towsley indicating ownership and the need to educate members of the Board of Supervisors as well as other cities. Public Participation: Allan Cameron urged Council to consider litigating approval of the Chiquita Canyon landfill. Mayor Smyth called for general Public Participation; there was none. Motion by Boyer, second by Darcy, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk